Talk:Khosla Ka Ghosla
RESOLVING A PARADOX There is a central intellectual paradox in this film that we the viewer need to resolve. Ordinarily when a man does not wish for something to happen, it tends not to. Yet in this film, the family succeeds in overcoming the corruption and dishonesty of the money boss Khurana through their ruse, despite the father's intense objections. He mainly objects because it is a dishonest thing to do, though he also objects because he does not want to get his educated son involved who knows has an opportunity for a big career in the states. We can dismiss the "dishonesty" of the ruse as a moral view. (It is limited compared to the truth.) When the spies of the Allies in WWII penetrated the Nazis, they too resorted to ruse to gain their advantage. They too were "dishonest" in various quarters, but was there not total legitimacy to their actions? The moral argument against the family's ploy at this plane cannot be supported. And yet it is precisely the father's moral view that opposes their action. And here is the paradox. It can be said that because of his deep and profound belief in honesty and integrity (and therefore not believe in ruses of this sort) is precisely the inner power that enables their ploy to succeed! How can we reconcile this? Khurana’s brutal and therefore physical. He even has the police under his thumb. It is corruption that borders on brutality. The father is vital; i.e. he wants above all else for his family to succeed. The son is educated and therefore mental. He sees the situation for what it is, and therefore applies his own personal values. In this case of doing the right thing -- i.e. help out his family who are being ruined and put aside his nascent career in the US. It is the power of the mind to scan the situation, and take control of life. He does that through a clever idea. It is a powerful one we have seen in history and literature: scam the scammer. (It has been used e.g. by police throughout the ages.) Now to address the central dilemma. How can it have succeeded if the father was against it? We can separate the father's view into two parts. The vital and spiritual view. At the vital level, he did not want to see his educated son get corrupted. He urged him therefore to move on and take the job in the states. His spiritual view was unalloyed honesty. He did not wish to use the same ugly tactics as the oppressor. In his heart, it is a pure spiritual view. Applied here however, the view becomes moral, because the situation dictates that any method is worthy against a brutish opponent. The vital view is limited. It meets resistance by life. I.e. the family goes ahead and carries out the plan, and it eventually succeeds. The unalloyed spiritual view of sincere honesty is unlimited. It in fact serves to support the final outcome. Because the father is pure of heart when it comes to honesty in life, it supports the success of the family's ruse. His spiritual view creates more energy than his limited moral, vital view, which has the impact of creating net positive energies, which move out and support the family's undertaking. This is one view of the situation. Other perspectives are welcome. Other points: It is also the story of strength to stand up to brutality. It is also the story of overcoming selfishness. The son has freedom to go to America, but does that mean he must abandon his obligation toward others. In the end, he decides to not be selfish, and wins the day for his father and himself. --Roy 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC) THE ISSUE OF STRENGTH The story is about a good man and a basically positive family. I do not recall the story sufficiently, but the father seems weak and naïve as well as good. Life exploits both weakness and naivety. Cherry is both stronger and better informed. Initially he wants to wash his hands of the whole family business, but seeing his father’s plight he eventually lends his strength to resolve the situation. Khosla does not want to do anything wrong, but he did not refuse to accept the results of Cherry’s deception. I tend to think it is more from weakness or nerves and unwillingness to impose on others (the actor) and to avoid confrontation. He is good, no doubt, but a strong good man would have evoked a different response from life. There is no real moral or spiritual issue. It is only legal and ethical. I like the last two lines. It is a story of strength (courage) and overcoming selfishness. Iqbal’s willingness to help is a life response. If you find the root of it, the story may reveal. The girl’s attraction to Cherry brings the support of the actor. This shows the basic personal atmosphere is positive. The general social atmosphere is negative, corrupt, supporting the crooks. GJ I think it is psychological. strength vs. weakness, vitality vs. mentality, strength of values vs. reality, old ways vs. modernity, self-interest vs. wider interest, etc. Honesty is to me spiritual – i.e. truth -- so in that sense it is an issue of the quality of the spiritual value vs. the reality he is confronted with. --Roy 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)